New Threat to A.H. Robins's Plan

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996.
To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems.
Please send reports of such problems to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

A coalition of Dalkon Shield claimants, lawyers and consumer and health advocacy groups yesterday called on all women with Dalkon Shield claims against the A. H. Robins Company to vote against the company's proposed reorganization plan.

The coalition called the plan unfair, inadequate and contrary to existing law.

Ballots were sent April 25 to the nearly 200,000 women who have filed claims against Robins, contending that the birth-control device caused pelvic infection, sterility or other injuries.

The reorganization plan, which would bring Robins out of its three-year-old Chapter 11 bankruptcy, requires the approval of two-thirds of the claimants who vote on it. Ballots must be returned by July 11.

Under a merger agreement, A. H. Robins, a pharmaceutical company based in Richmond, would be acquired by the American Home Products Corporation for $700 million in American Home Products' stock. In addition, American Home Products would finance most of a $2.38 billion trust fund that would be used to pay Dalkon Shield claims, but the acquiring company would be immune from future claims.

The coalition that objects to the plan represents about 20,000 claimants, or about one-tenth of those represented in the bankruptcy proceedings. The claimants who spoke out today said they were not satisfied with the settlement reached by the claimants' committee that officially represented them in those proceedings.

Members of the coalition said they expected many other claimants to vote with them in opposing the settlement once other women found out about the opposition to the plan. And others, they said, would probably not vote at all because they would not understand the complex, lengthy mailing that accompanied the ballot. Rejection Would Raise Questions

As a practical matter, it is not clear just what would happen if the plan is rejected. Bankruptcy law provides for the possibility of a ''cramdown,'' in which the judge would force the plan through despite the objection of the parties. Another possibility would be a new round of negotiations in which the plan would be revised in an attempt to satisfy the women's objections. But most observers say the probable consequence would be many months of delay with little likelihood of a change in the plan.

''The risk incurred in rejecting the plan cannot be justified by the rewards which could be reasonably expected,'' said Murray Drabkin, counsel to the claimants' committee.

Mr. Drabkin's committee has endorsed the proposed reorganization, saying that although the plan is not perfect, it ''offers claimants the most money and the best terms that could be achieved without a long and uncertain legal fight.''

Roscoe Puckett, a spokesman for Robins, commented, ''This is the sixth plan that has been proposed, but the first and only one that everybody, including the claimants' committee, has agreed on, and that's for one simple reason - because it's fair.'' Full Compensation for Banks

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

But Karen Hicks, president of the Dalkon Shield Information Network - one of several grass-roots groups of Dalkon Shield claimants - said at the news conference that the plan should be rejected because it provides that Robins's banks and trade creditors would get full compensation for their claims, while Dalkon Shield claimants would get only 35 to 55 cents on the dollar.

Furthermore, she said, the plan would give Robins's shareholders $700 million. ''This is particularly shocking in light of the fact that at the time Robins filed Chapter 11, its stock was selling at $8 a share,'' she said. ''Under the plan, Robins stockholders will receive around $29 a share.

''The Robins family would get approximately $350 million,'' she added. ''In summary, Dalkon Shield claimants shoulder all the uncertainties of the plan while all other parties profit from the business deal.''

Ms. Hicks, whose group is based in Bethlehem, Pa., said that under bankruptcy law it was illegal to pay the shareholders anything until claimants had been paid in full. She also objected to provisions in the plan that would limit the liability of the company's insurer, the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. Dispute Over Mailing List

According to Rosemary Menard-Sanford, who heads another Dalkon Shield claimants group, based in Seattle, most claimants do not have lawyers and have little understanding of either the legal process that has led to the plan or the consequences of their vote.

For the claimants' groups, a continuing frustration - and an issue still being negotiated - has been their inability to obtain access to a mailing list of all claimants. The court has ruled that the groups would have to pay Robins $130,000 for the list.

Even the official claimants' committee, which represented the claimants in the bankruptcy, failed to receive court approval for an informational mailing to all claimants.

''Robins has not only robbed the claimants of their health and fair financial compensation, but also of the ability to communicate with each other,'' said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, a Washington consumer group that is handling negotiations over access to the mailing list.

A version of this article appears in print on May 3, 1988, on Page D00001 of the National edition with the headline: New Threat to A.H. Robins's Plan. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe